New HC bench to hear Mirusuvil massacre case

[TamilNet, Saturday, 14 May 2005, 16:12 GMT]The Colombo High Court Trial-at-Bar (TAB) inquiry into the Mirusuvil
massacre case has been fixed before a newly constituted three
member-bench comprising Judges Mr.Upali Abeyaratne, Mr.D Wijesunthara and
Mr.Sunil Rajapakse for July 25. Earlier the inquiry was scheduled to resume
on 22 Monday, 2004. However the inquiry was put off indefinitely with the
murder of Judge Mr.Sarath Ambepitya who was the chairman of the
three-member bench, legal sources said.

The case was taken up before the newly appointed three-member bench of the
Colombo High Court last week to fix new date for the fresh inquiry, legal
sources said.

According to the prosecution, the accused had killed the civilians when
they were visiting their houses and lands in Mirusuvil after the military
operation of the SLA, legal sources said.

The inquiry into the Mirusuvil massacre case commenced before a
three-member High Court Trial at-Bar during the middle part of last year
and all witnesses were brought to Colombo from Jaffna and kept in safe
custody. However the inquiry came to a halt in September last year after
the evidence of sole eyewitness who miraculously survived the massacre and
a military officer who recorded the confession of Mr.R.M.S.Ratnayake of
Mahiyanganaya, an accused soldier were recorded followed by an appeal by
the accused soldier Mr.Ratnayake to the Supreme Court to declare that the
confession made by him was inadmissible as the military police officer who
recorded his confession was not a "police officer" within the meaning of
Section 23 of the Evidence Ordinance, legal sources said.

The five member bench of the Supreme Court comprised Chief Justice Sarath
Silva and Justices P.Edussuriya, H.S.Yapa, Asoka de Silva and
T.B.Weerasuriya which heard the appeal in its order directed the TAB that
it could continue its proceedings although the confession made by one of
the accused soldier Mr.R.M.S.Ratnayake was not admissible as the military
police officer who recorded the confession was not a police officer within
the meaning of Section 23 of the Evidence Ordinance but with other
available material evidence including an eye-witness to prove the charges
against the accused soldiers other than the confession recorded by a
military police officer, legal sources said.